| T O P I C R E V I E W |
| Mace Hammerhand |
Posted - 18 May 2006 : 10:32:40
Is it worth buying? I was expecting more Realms material...or was that another issue? |
| 17 L A T E S T R E P L I E S (Newest First) |
| Snotlord |
Posted - 17 Jun 2006 : 10:12:04
Thanks. I found Aurglaroasa as well in the Cult of the Dragon. No wonder she mixes well with established lore, although Dragon got "Thunderhome" wrong. |
| Arkhaedun |
Posted - 17 Jun 2006 : 01:41:07
The second edition sourcebook Cult of the Dragon can be found as a free download at WOTC's site. Here is the link:
http://www.wizards.com/dnd/files/2/fr_downloads/tsr9547.zip |
| The Sage |
Posted - 17 Jun 2006 : 01:29:35
Indeed.
See Hall of Heroes and Cult of the Dragon as well for more on Shargrailar.
|
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 17 Jun 2006 : 00:54:14
Shargrailar has been around for a while. I remember reading about him in Spellfire (the original editon) MANY years ago. |
| Snotlord |
Posted - 17 Jun 2006 : 00:50:05
quote:
Originally posted by Mace Hammerhand
Is it worth buying?
Statting a dracolich is easily an hour's work, so I would say "yes", although I suspect many scholars of these halls will disagree.
The remaining 129 pages are rubbish and only counts as a nice bonus. |
| Snotlord |
Posted - 17 Jun 2006 : 00:46:16
I got it yesterday, and are rather pleased with it, although the claims of a "giant issue" on the cover is somewhat far fetched.
So, has anyone given the dracolich Aurglaroasa on page 88 any though? Seems like she should mix with the established realmslore very well, but then again I'm no expert.
I'm gonna use her in my Year of Rogue Dragons plans for the Western Heartlands (and especially Cormyr) playing a key role for the Cult in a yet-to-be-invented tie-in to the Byers storyline.
Also, is Shargrailar a new addition to the realms, or are there any other sources on hiem? |
| dannyfu |
Posted - 22 May 2006 : 15:27:54
wow Knight, that slipped right by me. a Year of the Dragon "to get" list without "the Ruin". man, what gives? i'm not losing sleep over it or anything, but outside of the Dracolich article, i felt it was kind of lack-luster and you would figure wizards would list whatever they could in the buyer's guide section. maybe leave some of those ebberon books out of the list |
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 22 May 2006 : 01:10:21
Hey, they didn't mention The Ruin either, and they had a whole article on Dracoliches. I would have thought a sidebar would be nice, given that it came out the same month as the issue. |
| dannyfu |
Posted - 21 May 2006 : 17:06:49
This issue was so so for me overall but.....arrrggghhh.....I can't believe that they didn't put "Final Gate" in the "D&D Buyer's Guide May To August 2006" section in this issue. At first I thought they were making it a list of products that only contain bits on dragons, but that didn't end up being the case. I'm so steamed about this, I feel like this series isn't getting the press it deserves at all. Unless it's release date has been pushed back, but I don't think it has. The WotC book section still doesn't have pitures and info for "Farthest Reach" or the "Realms of the Elves". Elves just aren't getting respect these days. |
| Purple Dragon Knight |
Posted - 21 May 2006 : 02:56:53
quote:
Originally posted by jameslt0
Seasoned players may prefer a champaign setting like Forgotten Realms <snip>
Yes, Forgotten Realms is indeed the Champaign of all settings! a champaign setting... this is perhaps a new quote signature in the making!  |
| jameslt0 |
Posted - 20 May 2006 : 14:37:20
Sounds to me like Greyhawk is a very generic world in which to set adventures in. While it may not have the heros and villians that Forgotten Realms has, it is still good for beginning D&D. Seasoned players may prefer a champaign setting like Forgotten Realms or Eberron. I find nothing wrong with Greyhawk. The only reason I prefer the Forgotten Realms is personal choice. I have read several Dragonlance and Forgotten Realms novels. At one time, I thought Dragonlance was the greatest world. That was before The Age of Mortals. Oh well, enough ranting. Forgotten Realms, Eberron and Greyhawk all have their good and bad points, I am sure. So, it comes down to a choice. Where do you want to play your adventures? |
| Mr. Wilson |
Posted - 19 May 2006 : 07:55:55
I liked this issue, though it was light on Realms info. I also play Eberron, so the Prison article was actually very useful to me, and could be modified into the Realms with some work (ok, it'd take a lot of work).
And yes, Erik favors Greyhawk, but one must remember that Greyhawk (even if it's not supported as such and lacks a Campaign Setting) is the "generic" basis of 3.x DnD.
I'm also a subscriber, so I'm stoked about the $10 Unique Mini that I'm going to get. |
| The Sage |
Posted - 19 May 2006 : 01:14:56
quote:
Originally posted by Wooly Rupert
quote:
Originally posted by KnightErrantJR
First off, let me point out that I should have been more clear. Erik did not specifically say that phrase, I was extrapolation that from recent editorial choices. Just wanted to be fair and point that out.
Greyhawk was published as the main campaign setting for D&D before Ed ever sold FR to TSR, so as far as D&D goes, Greyhawk does predate FR.
However, as has been stated before, the Realms existed in Ed's head long before D&D came out. Though I don't know much about the creation of Greyhawk, I'd venture to say that the two settings were likely developed around the same time (pre-D&D). But Greyhawk was published long before TSR decided to expand to another setting, and called Ed to see if he had any material to go with the Realms references in his articles.
Indeed.
Ed's touched on this (the TSR contacting him part) in his '04 replies.
|
| Wooly Rupert |
Posted - 18 May 2006 : 17:22:28
quote:
Originally posted by KnightErrantJR
First off, let me point out that I should have been more clear. Erik did not specifically say that phrase, I was extrapolation that from recent editorial choices. Just wanted to be fair and point that out.
Greyhawk was published as the main campaign setting for D&D before Ed ever sold FR to TSR, so as far as D&D goes, Greyhawk does predate FR.
However, as has been stated before, the Realms existed in Ed's head long before D&D came out. Though I don't know much about the creation of Greyhawk, I'd venture to say that the two settings were likely developed around the same time (pre-D&D). But Greyhawk was published long before TSR decided to expand to another setting, and called Ed to see if he had any material to go with the Realms references in his articles. |
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 18 May 2006 : 17:08:38
First off, let me point out that I should have been more clear. Erik did not specifically say that phrase, I was extrapolation that from recent editorial choices. Just wanted to be fair and point that out.
Greyhawk was published as the main campaign setting for D&D before Ed ever sold FR to TSR, so as far as D&D goes, Greyhawk does predate FR. |
| khorne |
Posted - 18 May 2006 : 17:02:51
quote:
Originally posted by KnightErrantJR
I kind of got the feeling, in this issue, that Erik was paying lip service to supporting Eberron, FR, and Mystara, while more or less saying, "the real setting is Greyhawk, and here are some articles for the true beleivers out there." Keep in mind, I don't normally feel that way, and I think that although Erik is a devoted Greyhawk fan, he is usually very balanced. But not in this issue.
Greyhawk the real setting? Didn`t the realms exist long before Greyhawk? |
| KnightErrantJR |
Posted - 18 May 2006 : 16:45:38
The Planar Dragons article was kind of cool, I knew most of what was in the NWN 2 preview article, the Gen Con preview didn't do much for me, and I have no real desire to read the "Gord the Rogue" short story that Gygax did.
I love Ed, and I love the Wizard's Three articles, but I have to admit, this one didn't do much for me, and we don't learn much other than that Rautheene never found Dalamar, but did run into other wizards from Krynn.
I am kind of interested in reading the Princess Ark article, for nostalgia's sake, but I haven't done so yet. No interest at all in the Eberron prison complex in the issue. Wait, I take that back . . . I may steal the spells at the end of the article.
If you are interested in seeing dracoliches make their final evolution into Core/Greyhawk terms instead of as part of the FR, give Ecology of the Dracolich a try. The opening gave me false hope, since it quotes Sammaster's translation, but between that and a sidebar on "Dracoliches in Faerun" that doesn't even mention the Year of Rogue Dragons Trilogy (in fact, the novels aren't mentioned anywhere, dispite the fact that the final book's release coincides with this issue of Dragon), are the only mention of FR style dracoliches anywhere.
I think that Erik Mona has done a great job on Dragon during his run, but I was disappointed with this as an anniversary issue. Not only was I not impressed with most of the "generic" content, but even the token FR article was an article where Elminster talks to to wizards from Greyhawk.
I kind of got the feeling, in this issue, that Erik was paying lip service to supporting Eberron, FR, and Mystara, while more or less saying, "the real setting is Greyhawk, and here are some articles for the true beleivers out there." Keep in mind, I don't normally feel that way, and I think that although Erik is a devoted Greyhawk fan, he is usually very balanced. But not in this issue. |
|
|
